## Facts

- Apostolos K. Kakaes was an assistant professor on a tenure-accruing track at George Washington University (GWU), a private university in Washington, D.C.
- GWU’s Faculty Code governed tenure timing and notice and was treated as the parties’ employment contract.
- The Faculty Code required written notice by June 30 preceding the final contract year if tenure would not be granted; it also stated that a faculty member not “so notified” would “acquire tenure at the end of the term.”
- On June 28, 1993, GWU sent Kakaes a letter stating he would not be granted tenure at the conclusion of his appointment, while also indicating the matter was still being transmitted for consideration and that he would be notified of the outcome.
- In an earlier appeal, the court held there was a triable issue whether the June 28 letter was sufficiently final and definite to satisfy the Faculty Code’s notice requirement.
- After a bench trial on remand, the trial court found GWU breached the Faculty Code by failing to provide timely notice conforming to the Code, declined to order tenure, and awarded Kakaes $75,018 plus costs and interest.
- Kakaes appealed, seeking (1) an order requiring GWU to confer tenure and (2) increased damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the Faculty Code’s “shall acquire tenure” language required specific performance in the form of a judicial order granting tenure after GWU failed to provide timely notice.
2. Whether the trial court’s $75,018 damages award was erroneous or inadequately supported.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held the trial court acted within its equitable discretion in refusing to order GWU to grant tenure.
- The court affirmed the damages award, concluding the record supported the amount awarded and did not compel greater recovery.

## Legal Principles

- A university faculty code may constitute an enforceable employment contract, and failure to follow tenure-related notice procedures can support a breach-of-contract claim.
- Specific performance is an equitable remedy that remains discretionary; contractual language describing an outcome does not, by itself, compel a court to decree that outcome as a remedy.
- Courts generally deny specific performance when money damages provide an adequate remedy at law.
- Courts are reluctant to impose tenure as a remedy because tenure determinations implicate academic judgment and institutional discretion, and policy disfavors tenure granted solely because of procedural error.
- Damages must be proven with competent support; courts may decline awards based on speculative projections, including long-term earnings claims lacking adequate evidentiary foundation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a damages remedy for GWU’s breach of contractual tenure-notice requirements and held that, despite “shall acquire tenure” language in the Faculty Code, courts may deny tenure as specific performance where monetary damages are adequate and judicial restraint is warranted in academic personnel matters.


Kakaes v. George Wash. Univ., 790 A.2d 581 (D.C. 2002)